Fujifilm GFX 100 review

The Fujifilm GFX 100 is the 100 Megapixel medium format camera that the company has been promising since Photokina 2018. It's a dual-grip mirrorless camera that uses the GF lens mount. The addition of on-sensor phase detection for faster focus and in-body image stabilization significantly expands the range of photography it can apply itself to.

This combination of high resolution, image stabilization and on-sensor phase detection looks to not only drive home its large-sensor advantage over full-frame, but also expand the types of photography to which medium format can be easily applied, making it potentially the most flexible bigger-than-full-frame camera ever. In many respects we found it is, but this still leaves it as a very specialist camera.

102MP BSI-CMOS 44 x 33mm sensor

On-sensor Phase Detection

5-axis image stabilization

Continuous shooting at up to 5 fps

4K video with 4:2:2 10-bit HDMI output

5.76M-dot removable OLED viewfinder

16 or 14-bit Raw capture

The Fujifilm GFX 100 was launched with a recommended price of $10,000, including the electronic viewfinder.

What's new and how it compares

The camera's 102 Megapixels are what attracts the attention, but the GFX 100 brings a lot more than that.

Temporarily out of stock. Order now and we'll deliver when available. We'll e-mail you with an estimated delivery date as soon as we have more information. Your credit card will not be charged until we ship the item.

Hmm... I don't see the AF test as good as the author suggests. I'd say 80'ish percent of them are unacceptably un-sharp. Sure, I guess that depends on what you feel is acceptable focus, but it looks consistently behind the rider. But, as a saving grace... I don't think anyone really expected this to be stellar in this test, however, I'm surprised it was judged with such a positive slant EVEN though the performance is obviously below par in the current mirror-less realm. I will accept maybe there was more of an issue with the capture than the performance, but still... I don't see the positivity the following statement has.

The DPR verbiage.

"...As you can see, it does very well. It's not perfectly focused in every shot but it's extremely close, given how closely a 1:1 view is letting us view these images. That said, the camera only performs AF-C in its 3fps mode and we found that this was dropping to nearer 1.3fps to get these results."

I don't think I'm saying something radically different to you. 1:1 viewing of 100MP images is much more stringent target than we expect other cameras to achieve, yet the shoulders of the safety jacket are well focused in many of the shots.

I'm not saying you're going to get the full IQ of the camera, every shot, if you try to shoot moving subjects but compared to most medium format cameras (where getting perfect focus at all shouldn't be taken for granted), it's pretty impressive.

I agree, we are saying a lot of things in-line with each other. The only problem I have was with the positive prefix to the overall negative to neutral view. It looks like the camera was consistently just rearward and that could have been where the AF point was taking its cues from. So re-trying the test or just portraying it as inclusive might have made more sense.

You are right to relate this to other medium format cameras, as that's what it is, but I feel the bar should be higher as the camera is rated against non-medium format cameras in its overall rating. To suggest this is anything other than "OK", feels like a misrepresentation (Note: referring to AF performance here).

Overall, I feel it was well reviewed, but I also felt like it had some odd positive skews where performance was mostly neutral/adequate.

Only if there's some reason you need to fix the focus and shoot lots of shots.

If you can AF or you need to change the focus every couple of shots, which will be the case for most shooting, then it's a non-issue. Setting it up to archive documents (like a rostrum camera), it might be worth adapting a mechanical manual focus lens instead.

But we mentioned it specifically so that anyone that might be affected by it can judge for themselves.

Never disagreed with your ratings before but, come on, your build quality score is simply wrong. You said it yourself "Control dials feel small and cheap" and I don't need to hold one to see that vertical grip is like an afterthought. And now they need to recall maybe 1500 bodies due to a dial / lock issue on that afterthought of a grip. I've loved the look and feel of all Fuji's cameras. But this one is a build quality / ergo fail. I can't hardly believe it in context with all their other beautiful cameras. Let's hope it's beautiful on the inside!

Does this make it the ultimate do-everything camera? This quote from the start of the article. Having read much about this camera, I would say it certainly is not the ultimate do-everything camera. One area where it cannot even be considered for this accolade is fps. 5fps on the GFX 100 and 5fps on the Nikon D3500. The GFX 100, at this stage is notthing but a very expensive cameras playing to a niche market. If you have oodles of cash and the need for some of its capabilities it is a possibility. But as a do-everything cameras it is not even in the hunt. Higher end APS-C Fujis would leave it in their wake as would the Nikon D500 if we are talking 'do-everything. The Nikon Z cameras and D850 could wear this mantle more easily as could the venerable Canon 5Ds. The GFX 100 is an expensive niche machine, full stop. his does not mean it will not do a superb job for those who decide they need it or must have it. The latter group could be well advised to search for something more suitable.

A MF sensor sized camera certainly is not an ultimate do everything camera.Portrait photographers like narrow depth of field and in some cases very shallow DoF.So here it helps to have a big sensor and long focal length lenses.

However, close up and macro photographers, like me, usually try to avoid narrow DoF. I need to get close to my subjects (butterfly's, dragonfly's and snakes) anyway.For me a big sensor is troublesome because I have to get even closer to the subject in order to fill the screen, or use even longer focal length lenses, both of which only reduces the DoF.

First, that question about it being the ultimate do-everything camera we should take a rhetorical one. What makes this camera unique is its image quality coupled with its versatility of use for medium format.

Here's how one photog put it on PetaPixel:There has never been a camera that combines such stunning image quality, resolution, dynamic range, autofocus performance, overall handling, and ergonomics like the new Fujifilm GFX 100 does.

Claiming that GFX 100 is a spectacular macro camera is at least somehow odd.I would expect some kind of grounds to that.And why is that?

Well, firstly the bigger sensor needs to have a greater magnification in order to have the object relatively as big on the screen (sensor) as on for example FF sensor.Macro 1:1 size object fills the FF sensor 1,67 x more than 1:1 in the MF sensor (44x33). You see 1:1 means the same object size in both sensors, but sensors are of different size.

Then, secondly there actually is no macro lens available for GFX 100.The 0,5 magnification (1:2) is not macro, it is a close up photo.

Finally, because one needs either to get closer to the subject or to use a longer focal length lens with MF in order to get the same results than with the FF. And that means shallower DoF, which not is desirable in macro photography.

But being able to do everything with a MF camera feels absolutely ultimate.

Been using it for one month now, weddings, family portraits, landscapes, studio, events. Its so overkill its funny. Also, jpegs looks great, 90% of time I shoot jpegs and deliver photos straight as is.

'Control dials feel small and cheap'....why oh why does Fuji have to make these great cameras that feel cheap? My X-Pro1 was a camera I wanted to love but it felt 'hollow' for lack of a better word with mushy buttons. One of the reasons I love Leica is the build quality is impeccable....same can be said for Hasselblad and the X1D.

Clint, I own the XT-2, XT-3, XH-1, X100F and GFX 50r. None of them feel cheap. On the contrary, they are extremely well made and very rugged. I know because I am extremely hard on my gear. Now I will readily admit that I ordered the GFX 100 and have been waiting for it for many weeks now, and I have never held the camera. I've never seen one. But I bet it doesn't feel cheap. And I can tell you for sure that if it does feel cheap it sure as Hell ain't cheap! 😉https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Hi Greg, appreciate your feedback. I guess everyone's perception of 'cheap' is different. All I know is that the Fuji cameras I have held all look great, but feel cheap for lack of a better word. I guess maybe my expectations are higher after owning Leica cameras where so much effort is put into fit and finish, quality materials and even the way buttons feel when you press them.

It would be about the time DPR to start call 35mm as 35mm and not as "Full Frame". As well start to call 35mm as a "Small Format" when talking about format sizes as "Medium Format" and "Large Format" and to that same "Small Format" category belongs not just 35mm but as well APS-C, 4/3" and 1" all to way down to 8mm (4.5mm x 3.3mm, so 1/3.2" sensors).

That would mean we would have again all the proper formats easily said:

Small Format (35mm and smaller)Medium Format (anything larger than 35mm but smaller than Large Format 4x5")Large Format (4x5" or larger)

But it is clearly way too much ask from professionals to use correct "35mm" term, as they can't even talk about "Full Frame" only in context of "Half Frame" (that is APS-C).

We don't use "35mm" because it leads to sentences such as: "The X100 has a 23mm lens which is equivalent to 35mm in 35mm terms." It adds more confusion than clarity, for very little gain.

If we're trying to be logical, then 54 x 40mm, the largest digital format used to any major degree would surely be 'large format.'

Ultimately, 'full frame' has been the widely-used name for 35mm/135 for over twenty years. It's not a lack of professionalism you're seeing, it's an acceptance that language moves on.

And, if we're being pedantic about formats, full frame is a reference to the original formats for which the EF, K, A, R and F-mounts were designed, at a time when APS-C (which is not half frame). Half frame, if we're must be rigidly filmist about this, must only ever be used to refer to Olympus's film PEN cameras that literally used half a frame of standard 35mm film.

@Tommi - Don't be daft, everyone is well aware that 8x11 exists...at least in the film world. Everyone is also well aware that the term FF is used to reference 35mm frame size. You can call an orange an apple but at the end of the day it's still an orange.

Ok, but what do we call all the various "1 inch" sensors on the small cameras that are not even close to one inch? 😎I have no problem with calling 35mm FF since I have been doing that for years, as we all have. It is just a camera slang or vernacular that we all use and has caught a firm hold in the industry. It does not set a size standard or mean anything in terms of what is best. So it's phone sensors, 1 inch sensors, MFT, APSC, FF and MF sensors. No big deal. If any of you don't like it, just use the actual metric measurement in your posts and musings. .

All sensors from the 1/2.3" up to 35mm are Small Formats, just like in the film time all from 8mm to 35mm were Small Formats.

And "Full Frame" was only proper when talking about using same 135 film roll in 35mm SLR or in Half Frame cameras. Same film, different frame size exposed. The "Full" came from that you did capture the light sensitive frame in original intended 36x24mm frame size instead half of it (18x24mm, vertically) like APS-C digitally does. And that was nothing to do with the focal lengths, F-stops etc.

The other "Full Frame" meaning was that when you show your print, you didn't trim the edges while enlarging just so that everyone could see that the shot you took was full frame. When saying "Medium Format" then it is required to talk about "Small Format" and "Large Format" in same context, as there is no such category as "Full Frame". Comparing format category (Small, Medium, Large) to specific sensor size (35mm) is like bananas and countries comparison.

Fuji is on the roll, by completely skipping the overrated 35mm sensor at once. Make a smaller, classical consumer cameras with APS-C, and then for high quality demanding audience a medium format.

And if someone wants to do a business, you can take a loan and buy the Fuji camera system. If you have skills and you can get clients, you can pay that system back in a month or a two. But that is everyones own risk to take if they don't have capital in first place to buy it and then utilize it in their work. So hobbyists should get their funding from their profession to fund their hobby. And dropping 20-30k a year for a hobby is not too much to ask from mediocre income person.

Amazing details in the photographs but in some cases maybe too much detail for certain subjects. For example in some of the sample images of the young women, facial hairs are visible around the mouth and on the chin. In the situation where women are the consumer of the photographs, they may find such detail objectionable. For mature female subjects they may find the skin detail likewise objectionable. Using filters and post production techniques to adjust the images may defeat the high resolution attributes of the camera. Notice, I used the word "may", no absolutes here, just an opinion of someone who does portraits.

One of the small tidbits that DPR audience should remember is that very rare photo is ready "out of the go". And higher in commercial shooting you go, far more there is editing and adjustments done.

All the talks about sensor sizes, lens sharpness, resolution, dynamic range etc are waste of time as no one who has commitment to produce high quality photographs is going to release photos out of the camera and raw.

Amazing work can be done with decade old gear, with lenses that are not the sharpest in the bag, with sensors that are worst you can buy. Because the photograph is not made by specs, they are made by the photographer and in the image editing phase. And the final output is one that is dramatically changing all the gear differences so that what can look in pixel peeping a huge difference, can be negligent in the final image and no one else knows it than the person who has information of metadata.

Why these high Mpix are wanted, is client can crop multiple different frames.

I am an artistic nature photographer. I take a lot of close-up photos.While my photos are actually not macros, I still have to balance with DoF, light - fast exposure, hand shake.I cannot use tripod, I need to be extremely fast and flexible to reach my target: timid animals – butterfly’s, dragonfly’s and snakes.

GFX 100, how could the spectacular camera work – with what lens?Possibly 120 mm f/4 or 250 mm f/4 with 1.4x TC.

120 mm can do 1:2 photos from 45 cm distance. Not for me: DoF, light, scaring effect. Also 1:2 in MF is not the same as in FF. Target is 1:2 in the sensor, but due to bigger it would mean cropping.In practice, I could use 120 mm down to the 60 cm distance, not closer than that.That would probably mean 1:3,5.

250 mm can only do 1:5 photos, with 1.4 TC 1:3. So that would mean cropping too.

GFX 100 with the recent lenses means cropping for me, meaning there are other options like Sony a7R IV, possibly with the sharp FE 100-400 /f4.5-5.6.

Macro range is 1:1 to 10:1 and it has NOTHING to do with the sensor/film size.Close-Up range is 1:1 to 1:10 and again has nothing to do with sensor/film size.Photomicrophotography is 10:1 to far higher magnifications.

When you have lens reproduction (magnification) ratio known, you then call tell that what is front of the lens is projected in that ratio to behind of the lens and you know the distances and other ratios as it is format agnostic.

Tommy K1,You did not quite get what I meant. You are talking about the lens.Instead, I am an artist, and I am talking about the photograph: a file or a print.

Magnification 1:1 simply means the target is copied on to the sensor as big as it is: A 35 mm wide butterfly is 35 mm wide on a sensor.However, if you use FF the butterfly then fills the sensor area as FF sensor is 36 mm wide.But if you use MF sensor the butterfly is still 35 mm wide, but because of a bigger sensor it does not fill it.So it does have a lot to with the sensor size.

Then, if you print the photo (the example above, 1:1 and 35 mm object) both to the size of 36 cm x 24 cm, the following happens.Now in the FF print the butterfly 35 cm wide, but in the MF print it is smaller, depending on the size of the sensor (44 x 33 or bigger).Again, a lot to with the sensor size.

Tommi K1,Really, all I care is what kind of photo can I get from the subject I am interested in.

One more example, where the object (butterfly) is the same (width 36 mm), distance to the object is the same, focal length is the same, lenses are 1:1 macro and finally, both cameras have a 50 mega pixel sensor, but of a different size. One is FF (36x24) and the other is MF (44x33).

With FF:The object is 36 mm wide and it fills the sensor width 100 %.The final product is the photo file where the butterfly is just as wide as the whole photo is. Let's say the object coverage is 25 mega pixels of the whole 50 mega pixels of the photo. The object coverage is then 50 %.

With MF:The final product is the photo file where the butterfly is now not as wide as the whole photo, but 36/44 of the width of the photo. The object has now about 15 mega pixels of the whole 50 mega pixels of the photo. The object coverage is now only 30 %.

I will add this here because of the character limitation of the comments.I never said that the lens magnification changes by the format.1:1 is 1:1 with APS-C, FF and MF.BUT, the result in the photo file is not the same, just as I describe above.

Harry, I said that result is not same because it is format related, but magnification (like Macro is 1:1 to 10:1 ratio, anything below 1:1 magnification is close-up until 1:10 ratio).

No one cares is your photo macro or not, if one can capture the subject and represent it in final image in fashion where technicalities are not disturbing the content of the photo (excessive flare, ghosting, noise etc that are denying the purpose of the photograph), and that means cropping too.

Macro with a 8x10 large format camera is a full headshot, not something that some would even thought about as Macro for those is anything that is size of few millimeters etc or that is filling a 35mm sensor size.

The people should not get stuck to sensor sizes such a way that DPR is make it to be. And then try to twist the focal lengths and F-stops to changes in sensor sizes, as all that is just making all the photography far more difficult than it really is, and goes around the actual differences.

Sometimes I am amazed what people are getting worked up about: if you take macro, handheld, nature photographs, get a camera that fits your use case. The Fuji GFX100 certainly ain't that camera -- so why the question about a camera you are never gonna buy?

PhotoRotterdam,Yes you got the point. I have a camera/lens setup that does what I need.Anyways, I am interested if there is a new camera/lens setup with what I could do much better. If it can help me take photos where I usually cannot (faster and more accurate autofocus, better handling).See, with butterfly's you sometimes need to be real fast and flexible. And it could be a species you do not see every year.

So basically:GFX 100 as a camera could do better (IQ), but surely it is slower.Camera may do, but the lenses available do not.I usually do not crop at all, I want to get close enough to fill the screen correctly. GF lenses would not let me do it right.

And lastly:This is one opinion among all others. One special artist style photographing with special needs.I think it is worth reading, especially because I see here words all-rounder and do-everything-camera.Thinking about that, a photographer should never ever forget that the lenses make the photos, camera captures it.

Photographer makes the photos, lens frames it and sensor/film captures it (is exposed).

And the photographer starts all the decisions to use specific gear by defining first what are the requirements for the final output. Ie.

If you do billboards, you just need 2-3 Mpix for that.If you do postcards, you just need 1 Mpix for that.If you do a newspapers, 1-2 Mpix is enough.If you do web content, 1-2 Mpix is enough for that.If you do magazines or books, 4-5 Mpix is enough for that.If you do 80 x 60 cm prints, 8-10 Mpix is enough for that.

If you do 50% cropping (1/4 of the area as result), you need a longer focal length or more careful framing or way to move closer, but you can get somewhat away with just sensor as even with 16 Mpix sensor you get 4 Mpix left that is enough for most usage.

And no, there is no such difference do you look a 4 Mpix image from a 32" Full HD television or from 75" 4K television, as you are not going to sit 1 meters from the 75" television.

However I prefer to say that the photographer also frames the target (moving or zooming).Lenses do much more than a camera body (electronic sensor) and the quality there really matters, though there are optical laws that cannot be changed.This is something I think has not been discussed enough.DPReview uses a test photo to compare IQ of different camera bodies.But they are not done with the same lens (like D810 and D850).

I do of course sell my work and in that case the photos are manufactured to artwork paintings, I do not sell files. The biggest I have used are 100 cm x 80 cm (wall painting, ratio 5:4). Now if that painting is about 150 DPI it means 5905 x 4724 dots, which is a 6K photo.

I use a quality 4K display to look at my photos, sometimes even zooming a bit. The distance to the display is usually 60 cm, but sometimes even 40 cm (I have a very good near vision). So definitely the 36.3 mega pixels of my camera is enough (7.36K), but not too much.

Sure a person can look at 8x10" print and then notice a higher definition between 300 DPI and 720 DPI, but that is really so tiny that even 150 DPI passes in most cases and 125 DPI starts to be questionable for many.

Processing the files for printing is totally another thing, where the real difference is made, instead using specific lens or sensor.

Are you saying that a small detailed subject, like the human iris, will always look the same when posted online irrespective of whether or not the shot was taken by a 4mp camera or a 150mp camera?

"If you do magazines or books, 4-5 Mpix is enough for that.."

So you're saying an 8x12 print from my 4mp Nikon D2hs offers no, or hardly noticeable difference in detail when compared to a 100mp print of the same small highly detailed item (e.g. detail in fabric weave or the print detail on paper money)?

There is *no* ultimate do-everything camera. A camera is simply a tool to do a job. You guys know this as well as anyone else, so why is this question posed as premise in your comment when you already know the answer is "No."? (and that it applies to all cameras?)

Hi mrpuggy,Yep, I hear you and I would agree with you assessments. My X-H1 is also a very good "all-rounder" for my professional work.

Sometimes I get the impression that it's the verbiage DPReview uses and the premise its based on that creates the problem(s) for me; it strikes me as a means to getting clicks and views...it's the of the use of adjective "ultimate" that I find misleading.

When virtually everything is described in superlatives all the time, trying to describe something that is truly superior doesn't have the credibility and authenticity it might otherwise have.

Many high res cameras can give you that; I’ve seen it in my portraits quite often.I’ve always wondered: what did the camera actually focus on? The pupil or the reflection of someone/something in the distance?

LOL! When Canon made the 5DS/R dpreview said it could not be used outside a studio environment. Now with the 100 MPIX Fuji you will "get the most out of 100 megapixels even when you leave the studio behind you".

Anyway good that dpreview has left the more MPIX = studio camera myth behind. And cudos to Fuji showing the way with a blazing 100 MPIX camera. Cannot wait to see Canon's high MPIX mirrorless.

Could you please point out where we said the 5D S or SR "could not be used outside a studio environment?"

I think we pointed out that you need to think about shutter speeds and drive modes pretty carefully, but not that it couldn't be used outside the studio. The GFX 100's IBIS and relatively clever switching between electronic, EFCS and mechanical shutter take some of these pressures off you, but we still said you need to think carefully about shutter speed to get the full resolution benefit.

Dan Vincent "Shutter shock, mirror slap, and lack of IBIS certainly hurts the 5DS/R."Canon didn't go into the 5DSR blind about shutter shock as they developed a new mirror box designed to negate shutter shock from mirror slap. If I recall shutter shock was more of an issue with the Nikon D810.

There are many Canon lenses that have image stabilization so not having IBS in the 5DSR is not really a big issue.

@Snapper2013 - 'There are many Canon lenses that have image stabilization so not having IBS in the 5DSR is not really a big issue'Give me a break...there are a lot more Canon lenses that do NOT have IS. Canon needs to implement IBIS in future cameras to be taken seriously.

One of our biggest issues with the D810 was the softness and often significant blur induced by shake caused by the mirror and shutter mechanisms, particularly with VR lenses where the vibration reduction mechanism seemed to interact negatively with the shock caused by the moving mirror and/or shutter. At certain shutter speeds with some lenses it was bad enough to render completely"

I have a D800E and have not experienced SS issues but note, I've not researched SS issues with the D800.

Great camera, well done Fuji. Comprehensive review. I wonder though why it gets gold. Its AF is clearly not as good as the contemporary FF cams. Banding limits DR that can be used.. It is times more expensive than a Panasonic or Sony FF S1R A74. S1R however gets silver while it does not seem to be worse in any way o at least not as much as the price would suggest

I am sorry but these MF camera's have been compared to the FF ever since the GFX 50 came to the market three years ago. It makes sense because we see that m43 cams are constantly in every single review compared to APS-c where these two are not the same format either. APS-c is 365 mm2 and mFT 224 mm2. A 60% difference which is almost identical to the difference between 864 mm2 (FF) and this sort of Medium format (1452 mm2).

And given that Fuji's historical user base is happy to play up how close they perceive APS-C to be to FF, despite there being a whopping 135% difference in sensor size (i.e. more than twice the difference in size between M4/3 and APS-C), it seems like there is a little bit of cognitive dissonance happening.

People also seem quite happy to compare 1" sensors to 4/3" sensors, despite a 94% difference in sensor size (again bigger than the difference between 44x33 and FF, and between APS-C and M4/3).

There's no reason that this 44x33 mini-medium format should be considered to be "untouchable" or in an "entirely different category" merely by virtue of being somewhat larger than 36x24.

It is about Gold and Silver. Not 90 vs 85 or so which I understand. And like I said: when it is IQ: mFT is compared to APS-c constantly. When it is AF it is. Apparantly it is somehow fair to compare a 225 mm2 sensor to a 365 mm2 sensor. One might say: "Well they are in the same price category so you would expect the such a comparison". Or in broader sense that they are pretty similar. This would all count for MF too though. with one caveat: the MF cam is about three times more expensive than the most expensive FF. Where mFT is not forgiven, certainly not Panasonic, Its AF is not bad at all, it is very good actually. But..always mentioned as a downside as compared to some APS-c cams. Being fair means you apply a single standard to all competitors. To be biased means you use a double stadand and too often I see this happening here.

Obviously this is an amazing feat of engineering. I'd love one! Not sure I like the defaults and skin tones looking at the studio scene compared to the 645z, the girl almost looks green on the Fuji, but those defaults can probably be changed. The Fuji kicks butt on resolution, ergonomics and features, that is certain.

Oddly enough, when doing the studio comparison, the 645z couldn't even resolve the peacock feather on the left. Very odd, it's like the camera had a blind spot. ;-)

@Androole--The endless price promotions have the 50R at $3999 for all practical purposes. It is still pretty early in the product cycle, so additional price reductions may appear in the not too distant future. $2,999 is the right answer to the new Sony A7R iv.

Plenty of money to be made selling lenses and new camera bodies down the road.

The 50R is a bit of a strange product, though, because it was arguably already a way to use up pieces from the parts bin that were at the end of their life cycle. The sensors in it, for instance, are already more than 5 years old. Which is about as old as sensors get, these days.

I expect Sony thinks the A7R IV is a closer match for the GFX100 given all its bells and whistles, and would be happy to put the A7R II or III up against the much less sophisticated GFX 50R. Given that those cameras are selling in the $1800-2500 range, that $3000 50R really probably should come sooner rather than later.

Though I suppose there is a mysticism associated with the words "medium format" that can make rationality fly out the window.

I agree with your assessment of the 50R. They may have used some dated parts, but did so with aggressive pricing in mind. There have been a number of reviews that note the camera is not a terrific value proposition--marginal cost versus the marginal benefits of upgrading from FF to MF. Still they all rave about the image quality of the 50R. That was before the new Sony.

A lower price for the 50R changes that equation. How low and how soon are the questions? I think early next year the camera will retail for $3,500 and lower by the end of 2020. Fuji will probably come out with a new model that has a more modern sensor and some more bells and whistles as well.

Sony has not released, nor appears to have any plans to release, a new lower-end version of their 44x33 BSI sensor. There is only the 100MP IMX461 (in colour and monochrome variants).

I suspect the only way to offer intermediate options, such as a replacement to the GFX 50S, is by de-contenting their top-tier model. I.e. no IBIS, and stripping out other features. Perhaps it would be possible to include those features, but with the old generation sensor (by getting a supply-side deal), but there are so many liabilities to the old design in terms of read-out speed that I'm not sure how many people that would appeal to.

There is also the new-tech 150MP IMX411, but the much larger 53x40mm sensor is of course incompatible with anything that Fuji is offering.

Big, slow and massively expensive. No matter how good the image quality is and no matter how fast Canon and Sony can compete with resolution on FF, the camera is doomed as FF competition. As MF and those with means it looks awesome.

Sorry mf, I used your whole comment to come up with my conclusion that your comment is clueless. This camera is DIFFERENT than Canon's and Sony's FF high res smaller sensor variants and will outperform both for it's intended purpose on multiple levels. Now this camera may not be YOUR cup of tea but it isn't doomed and they are going to sell tons of them.

If you want to call me clueless be my guest but this camera, on paper at least, looks amazing.

MF I moved from FF to GFX and I'd never go back. I love the bigger sensor and the whole experience. I actually get a bit emotional when I pick it up. I definately like the camera more than most people...

Well of course it's doomed as a FF competitors because it's in a totally different (and probably niche) market. But I think Fuji is onto something good, and IF MF does become the "new FF" market, Fuji will already have their foot in the door with affordable options while the others (Sony, Nikon, Canon) try to figure it out (if it even gets to that). Plus, Fuji is giving Sigma and PhaseOne a run for their money (not to mention Hasselblad although I consider them to be a separate category even though they are also MF--Fuji is more towards the budget/enthusiast market, Hasselblad is marketed more towards the professional market).

It outsells the X-T3... and Fujifilm is doing well? - Right this is why Fujifilm just released their financial results for Q1 2020 and guess what?

The Year on Year revenue of Fujifilm dropped a whopping 63% over last years Q1 from 12.2 billion yen to 4.5 billion yen.

Yes Fujifilm is really outperforming the others... Even Nikon showed better results year on year for Q1. That's the sad truth of it.

If the GFX100 truly outsells the X-T3 then you can really say Fujifilm is in BIG troubles.

No sir - The GFX100 is not outselling the X-T3.As a matter of fact it may sell according to their projection, but that number is far, far below the number of planned X-T3's to sell.

For your information the GFX is funded from the income of the X-Series. Without the X-Series there is no chance that the GFX will be able to grow to a level that it can be sustainable on its own. That's the reality of it.

But I can fully understand that's not the romance story you would like have heard.

"I believe its outselling the XT3 at the moment so I'm thrilled this better than full frame system is here to stay ."

I sure hope that's a sarcastic remark. If you remotely believe that, I'm sorry, it's not true. Not really even possible either, since the XT-3 has been out for far longer, not to mention the XT-3 is about 1/6 of the price of a GFX100. The GFX100 is also too new to have outsold the XT3 in any way.

And to be honest, I don't see MF taking off significantly any time soon, partially because not many people need 100MP and if Sony's a7R IV can prove that a FF at 61MP can produce good results, then we may not necessarily need the extra cost and bulk of a 100MP MF camera. Even the 50MP GFX50s/R have shown that for most people, 50MP on a MF camera at around $4000-$5000 is about the limit most people are going to pay for such technology (At least, right now). (Heck people complained about the cost of the a7R IV and the NIkon Z7/D850).

If it is, then please see this statement:"Of course, the rankings below are representative only for the FujiRumors community and not for overall sales."

And then this"Only by a hair, but it was enough: the Fujifilm GFX100 sold better (pre-orders included) than the Fujifilm X-T3."

I'm still a bit skeptical of these results especially since FujiRumors states that the rankings are based on the FujiRumor's community and may not represent overall sales. So really, they're not giving the full picture. I'd like to see the real numbers from Fuji to have this be remotely convincing.

Yes, but that's not the case here. The point that is being made is that people don't read the small print, which is what I was pointing out. The user implied that the GFX100 was outseling the XT-3, which is partially true if you ONLY looked at Fujirumor's numbers. But even they say that this is not representative of the community and not total sales.

I don't really care for MF. For my needs, it would essentially be a wate of money to spend $10k on a body. $5k maybe, but then there is the cost of lenses, which is not too appealing to me. a 45MP FF sensor is more than plenty for me, as it is probably for many on here, especially those just posting online or to social media.

People can think whatever they want, but this is how false information gets passed around. People cherry pick or skew numbers (either intentionally or unintentionally) as fact.

racin06 If your correct then Fujifilm is gonna feel the squeeze of larger FF sensors biting into the profits of their successful APSC. Prices are similar and there are performance differences that in time will be hard to overcome. I would think that the MF, maybe the 50mp one is designed to compete with FF. If it isn't Fuji is straddling and should have put a foot down in FF. Perhaps they will yet.

This is the first time I’ve seen a perfect Image Quality (for RAW) rating for a camera on DPReview. Yet the banding issue limits this camera’s sensor to about only 13 stops of DR. The latest Sony FF has 15 with only slightly less ‘real world’ resolution. It’s going to be interesting to see what the same rating on that camera will be once it’s fully reviewed too.

@PNad - Well I have news for you. The 16 bit RAW from the Fujifilm GFX100 is also pure marketing.

I recently attended a GFX100 roadshow and when I asked the technical guys from Fujifilm Germany about sensor 16-bit RAW their answer was that the sensor is capable of 16-bit RAW however the output is still 14-bit RAW.... Now stop talking and blaming others over marketing as Fujifilm does exactly the same.

Don't believe me, call Fujifilm tell them you are interested in the GFX100, go and attend a roadshow and ask the technical guys from Fujifilm the same question and you will get to hear the exact same answer. Not 16-bit RAW just 14-bit like all other manufacturers offer.

FWIW it looks like 26MP APS-C, 60MP FF and 100MP MF are the same sensor with different sizes (ie, the individual photosites are the same size) so they should have the same per "pixel" DR (all things being equal). if normalizing to some resolution (8MP for example) sensor surface area is directly responsible for DR. Unless someone is cooking their raws (or withholding tech from competition) ...

I just had a look at the stuff Jim Kasson did. There are 2 things to note with the 16 bit files: (a) AF striping (which has been reported already in the MF forums here some time ago), and (b) the colors are actually still good, even after the 6 stop push.

Now this isn't all that surprising, but as usual, the forum crowd, with some exceptions, fails to see that, and JK has shown that exactly this kind of detail slips past him time and again.

Which also means that things are somewhat more complex, and assuming that a similar / same DR for 14 and 16 bit leads to the same results is blindingly ignoring certain computational basics in connection with digitized analogue signals (assuming that no dithering is applied).

The other point completely missed is tonal resolution, because there are cases where this may actually matter -- where you either need fine tonal resolution directly, or because the scene DR is so small that you have to spread it. Again, no dithering in PP => problems.

It does have the best image quality we've ever tested, so I'm not sure why you think I shouldn't say that. However, that's not the full story and there are limitations to it as a camera, which are discussed in the text that follows.

Because Richard reservations of any kind do not have a place in a review of an existing product performance. Especially if given product is "compared" with another with different (superior in this case) specifications, i.e larger sensor.Would you ever write that "this APC camera is the best camera we've ever reviewed (though its larger sensor DSLRs peers should out-perform it)..."?I think that in the best case your rhetoric speculation is just an obvious ascertainment, in the worse it may perceived as an implying comment of "something in this product is somehow shady", both undermining your conclusion.So you could omit the text in parenthesis or you could express your curiosity as for how it performs to an already scheduled review of its peer. Personal beliefs, expectations, no matter if they are well founded, are irrelevant in an evaluation article published in technical press context.It's called deontology.

This is probably the limit of what we review but a class of cameras with 54 x 40mm sensors exists beyond this. We have one of them: the Phase One IQ4 150MP, which has essentially a larger version of this sensor (the same BSI 3.76μm pixels, only more of them), and everything we've shot and seen shows its IQ scales up as you'd expect.

The statement that it has the best image quality of any camera we've ever reviewed is absolutely true. However, it feels necessary to put that in context. This isn't to take away from the GFX 100's performance but it would be inappropriate for me not to acknowledge that, if money really is no object, there is a class of cameras beyond this.

"Would you ever write that "this APC camera is the best camera we've ever reviewed (though its larger sensor DSLRs peers should out-perform it)..."?"False comparison. APSC and FF are widely considered as different categories, while (no matter how much it tweaks your nose) all the MF cameras Richard refers to, are considered one category. It also needs to be pointed out that Richard didn't say "best camera we've ever reviewed".

What surprise me the most about the video quality ("impressive" due to DPreview), that the quality is more or less on par with the video quality of my old LX100.... The Fuji is sharper than the LX100 but the amount of detail is about the same.

"not talking about the same Panasonic model as elvissa1" Yep, I realised that sometime after I posted :/"with these high resolution test shots, it almost always makes a difference where exactly you are looking:"The resolution certainly looks identical in the sample you posted but I would argue that there isn't as much fine detail to resolve in that portion of the scene as the portion I posted. Look at any part of the scene with extreme fine detail and the S1 doesn't have the same resolution as the 96MP it claims. OTOH, S1 users should still be happy about the resolution boost from 24MP regardless.

WOW - Fujifilms earnings report for Q1 FY2020 has been released today....

The figures are..... quite dramatic for the imaging business so to say!

Revenue has gone down from 87.9 Billion Yen to 74.6 Billion yen (-15.1%)Operating income - Year to year Q1 2019 from 12.2 billion yen to 4.5 billion yen Q1 2020. Dropped 63.2 percent!

Quote from the financial report:"In the electronic imaging business, the sales of entry-level mirrorless digital cameras decreased under severe market conditions. The sales of middle- and high-end models were strong including FUJIFILM X-T30 launched in March 2019, and FUJIFILM GFX 100 launched in June 2019.

Revenue decreased due to such factors as declined sales of instant photo systems and mirrorless digital cameras. Operating income decreased due to the revenue decrease.

I think eventually MILCs will go the way of the Dodo. With maybe niche high-end pro models remaining. For the vast majority of people, smartphone cameras are already good enough. The dedicated camera market is unsustainable over the medium to long term unfortunately. It may even get to the point that enthusiast photographers will have no other choice but to solely use their smartphones for this hobby. Or just stick to their increasingly antiquated cameras and lenses they already own. Very sad 😔

I think GabrielZ is correct. The only potential survivors will be Canon, SONY & Leica. It is sad, I'm old so I'll continue to enjoy the hobby with what I have(can't see buying any new gear) but for those who will only know smartphone photography, I feel they are missing a wonderful, hands on experience- nothing like looking through a viewfinder and making all the decisions yourself rather than AI determining everything. But this is how the world turns and it is stunning what smartphones are capable of, and will be even more so in the future.

NicoPPC - Fujifilm is currently doing worse than Nikon.... That's a BIG problem not minor. Nikons FY2020 Q1 figures were bad but expected and forecasted by Nikon themselves. However these figures of Fujifilm are even worse and were unpredicted for.

The problem is that Fujifilm imaging isn't doing well at all.They may not be able to survive in the long run if Fujifilm isn't able to make the GFX sustainable on its own within in the next few years. As it seems the X-Series are under huge pressure from above and sales is declining in a more rapid pace than Fujifilm had anticipated for.

A drop in revenue for Q1 from 12 billion yen to just 4.5 billion Yen on a YtoY basis is a loss of income of 63%. That's a huge sign that things are NOT going as planned.

I am not panicing - But they are actually doing worse at the moment than some other companies that have been in deep sh!t. However Fujifilm has been touting a lot of how well they were doing. So this comes as a surprise so to say. Seems like Fujifilm is unable to attract enough new customers from Canon and Nikon any longer to sustain their level of revenue now CaNikon have entered the MILC market.

It also seems that the cheaper FF offerings we see these days lead to a slowdown in sales of the X-Series. In the long run that still is a potential cause for many headaches to come at the Fujifilm management level.

So? Do your enjoyement out of a camera directly tied to financial performances? Who cares if they go bankrupt, right now, the GFX100 is a beast, by the time of a given company goes kaput, another beast will rise by then, and so on.

No a phone isn't really a camera, it's replaced the camera for the happy snappers that generally used compacts and for many it's fine for holiday snaps. However those that are serious about their photography will still want a real camera with decent lenses. Phones make pretty crappy cameras to be honest it's just the happy snappers don't care because it's convenient, always with them and uploads to social media are easy.In the past SLRs and rangefinders were really only used by pros and enthusiasts. SLR owning happy snappers were not really so common most had a compact of some sort.The beginning of the DSLR era was a bubble for camera manufacture now the bubbles burst and it's back to reality for them.

Just once I would like to see any of the GFX compared to a medium format camera rather than a DSLR. All the cons mentioned. Control dials, Autofocus performance, Portrait orientation grip, Portrait orientation controls and dial setup should be evaluated with a medium format eye. That and the most obvious, value. I can say Im biased as I am a GFX-S user, but why I got into this camera is to get my feet in the medium format world. And for me the camera outweighs any cons from other medium format cameras. No YouTube reviewer, blogger has ever compared these to other medium format cameras. Without the release of GFX cameras, I could never afford diving into digital medium format cameras.

We've been shooting the Phase One IQ4 alongside the the GFX 100, so the difference between the two (in terms of being able to shoot hand-held, having the battery endurance to practically shoot outside the studio, in terms of focus accuracy and speed) are covered in the conclusion. This was my comparison point every bit as much as full frame was.

@xjuanx it's because it blows away any other MF camera and operation wise, it's closer to a DSLR, FF camera. There isn't any MF camera on the market that can beat GFX on price, functionality, speed, autofocus, video, lens price. there might be 2-3 MF can beat this beast on ultimate image quality wise but they are for tethered studio shots or painfully slow (compared to gfx100) to operate and their lens price is more than gfx100 so you do the math

Love to see more comparisons between them and get off this kick with the DSLR comparisons. I don't recall a Canon 5d Mk IV compared to the Olympus EM1, just my rational on these types of conclusions. But I do get what market Fuji is attempting to grab. Im a long ways from the GFX100. Im hoping it will keep improving and bring the prices down over time, long term having one for the IQ alone would be amazing. Maybe in another 5 years.

I wonder why those cameras from Fuji do not utilize the „vastly superior“ xtrans pattern... ;-))) Following Fuji logic this camera could be so much better. Or the other way around: why not stop this nonsense with the x-series?

I use Fujifilm and love it. But i agree. X-trans may have been useful at 16mp but now it is redundant. It offers no advantage and create some small inconveniences. But Japaneses companies are often very stubborn and when they accept one idea they have a problem of letting it go.

I have the X-H1 und GFX50 R. On the H1 like with the other X-Trans cameras you will hardly find moire. In the GFX50 R results is plenty of moire, one of the downsides. On the 100, at least in the test pictures, you do not find much moire. This is due to the higher resolution. So there is no need for X-Trans und you do not have the down sides anymore (mostly people that are bashing against x-trans, because they do not know how to process them).

Great camera for sure, and reasonable size (compared to Panasonic SR1?) for such a larger sensor. My issue is the lack of fast lens. The GF110 seems to be the fastest at F2, compared to F1.2 lens for FF. The GF110 F2 bokeh is probably comparable to 85/1.4, but that doesn't help ISO sensitivity. Really wonder if there are some study on the trade off.

fast lenses are used to create a thin depth of field, not to keep the iso down. With modern sensors, just upping the ISO is a far better approach than trying to do a hyper focal shot at low aperture.

With a medium format, a f2 lens delivers super thin DOF which is already very hard to use (at 100mp). Having a lower aperture lens would only make those lenses huge and heavy and not adding any value from a practical photographer point of view.

This problem, if it is one, was discussed when the first Fuji "mid format" came out some years back. Bigger sensor does gather more light, but with no fast lenses available the TOTAL amount of light is more with 135 sensor cameras with f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses than this Fuji with f/2, not to mention f/2.8. Thus there is no (theoretical) dynamic range and noise advantage over 135 cameras until f/1.4 lenses are available for it also.

"fast lenses are used to create a thin depth of field, not to keep the iso down"

"With a medium format, a f2 lens delivers super thin DOF which is already very hard to use (at 100mp)"

This points to the difficulties in extracting all the potential image quality from larger sensor systems. If you're limited by available DoF and need to increase the ISO, you aren't getting all the benefit of the larger sensor.

A lot of thoughtful answers. Was skeptical of higher pixel counts for a while and stay at 24MP with FF. Lately, the IQ of Leica Q2 during daylight convinced me of the high megapixel benefits, so the 100MP of GFX is definitely useful for many applications. Hope the platform catches on and companies like Sigma produces fast primes.

Look, in many cases FF costs as much or even less than crop. And that's the main argument here. While the pseudo-medium GFX format is a lot more expensive and it doesn't really offer much extra oomph with native lenses.

If Sony brought forth a 6x7 sized sensor, 200mp or more, for under $30k, with a kit as good (or even just nearly as good) as the Fuji, the 54x40mm sensor would be rendered practically irrelevant. Think of the versatility of a top-rate 24-35 f/4 zoom in conjunction with a 6x7 sized sensor. If Sony created such a kit- Sony would have the premium MF segment to itself.

"Even with posed portraiture with just a single subject, we weren't especially impressed with where the camera tried to place the focus. It regularly focused on the subjects' eyelashes, rather than the eye itself, and we were able to get better results by using a single very fine AF point, or manually focusing."

Was the hit rate so low as to be useless? Was this with the 110 and the 250? This wording suggests an almost unusable eye AF system for many typical portraiture scenarios.

Let the AF get you most of the way there; manually fine-tune; then fully depress the shutter button. Sometimes doing what can easily be manually and quickly done by hand is better than wrestling with, or expecting technology to do what’s reasonably unexpected.

More about gear in this article

High quality EVFs, or electronic viewfinders, are pretty ubiquitous these days, but that wasn't always the case. This week we take a retrospective look at several cameras that raised the bar for EVF performance.

The Fujifilm GFX 100 combines the highest resolution we've ever tested with features such as image stabilization, on-sensor phase detection and 4K video capture that you don't usually find in medium format cameras. Does this make it the ultimate do-everything camera?

Would you use a medium format camera for video? In this week's episode Jordan does, and he explains why he's pleasantly surprised – even impressed – with the video capabilities of Fujifilm's 100MP medium format camera.

We've got our hands on a nearly final Fujifilm GFX 100 to begin using in earnest, and though it's not yet running final firmware, we couldn't help but put it in front of our studio scene to see what it can do – have a look for yourself.

Latest in-depth reviews

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

The S1H is a full frame mirrorless camera designed with videographers in mind and includes advanced features like 6K video capture, 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording, improved video scopes, high frame rate recording, Panasonic Varicam color science and more.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.